He's been on the stand for a few hours now. I'm following from afar so don't know the details, but apparently he was asked, under oath, if he was familiar with something called the disabled list. Seriously. (This is according to one of the tweets by the NY Times.)
Also have heard that the jury was told that the Red Sox do indeed play in Boston. Again, seriously.

I had previously thought taking the Barry Bonds case all the way to trial was the most misguided use of government resources in our legal system. I stand corrected.

Click to expand...

So how do you think the government should respond when it believes a citizen has lied under oath? Ignore it? Or like it has for all time, proceed through legal channels?

Whether the House should have held hearings on PEDs in baseball back in 2008 is debatable, but they happened, and Clemens insisted on testifying, and it's believed he perjured himself ... so what now? Give him a pass just because it costs a bucket full of money to prosecute and we're all sick of PEDs? I've yet to hear a reasonable legal response on what we should do with citizens charged with perjury that doesn't involve a trial.

I had previously thought taking the Barry Bonds case all the way to trial was the most misguided use of government resources in our legal system. I stand corrected.

Click to expand...

So how do you think the government should respond when it believes a citizen has lied under oath? Ignore it? Or like it has for all time, proceed through legal channels?

Whether the House should have held hearings on PEDs in baseball back in 2008 is debatable, but they happened, and Clemens insisted on testifying, and it's believed he perjured himself ... so what now? Give him a pass just because it costs a bucket full of money to prosecute and we're all sick of PEDs? I've yet to hear a reasonable legal response on what we should do with citizens charged with perjury that doesn't involve a trial.

Click to expand...

It's the Martha Stewart dilemma.

There are two rules when committing perjury. 1) Don't be famous enough that you can become the high-profile example that makes someone's career, and 2) when someone with the power to prosecute tells you to just tell the truth because they have a ton of evidence that you are lying, don't let hubris get in the way of coming clean.

It's not like they are going to save their reputation by going to trial and winning. If anything, the "lay low" approach guys like Pettitte and Jason Giambi (although they had less to lose in terms of reputation) have taken seems to be what works best.

Everyone would have known Martha Stewart was guilty of insider trading, either way. Everyone knows Clemens used PEDs. So basically he is risking possible jail time, the way she did, in order to avoid having to say what everyone knows anyhow. If his ego didn't trump all logic, he would realize he is not gaining anything and possibly losing a lot.